Wakilii

Bulima & 2 ors v Mwidu (Civil Appeal No. 024 of 2006)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 264 · 2012 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Kamuli District Land Tribunal decision in a land trespass claim
Decision
Decision of the Kamuli District Land Tribunal affirmed; respondent's ownership of suit land confirmed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Land Tribunal's finding that the respondent successfully proved his claim of trespass. The appellants had encroached on the respondent's land by planting boundary marks to demarcate it under the guise of separating two villages. The court found no fault with the Tribunal's evaluation of evidence, noting that alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not affect the material issues. The court held that the Tribunal properly weighed the evidence including testimony from elderly witnesses and findings at locus in quo, though it noted the procedural irregularity of calling additional witnesses at the site visit.

Outcome

Decision of the Kamuli District Land Tribunal affirmed; respondent's ownership of suit land confirmed

Facts

The respondent inherited land at Butege village, Namugongo sub-county, from his late father and had resided there since birth. The land traversed a railway line. In September 2003, the three appellants encroached on the respondent's land and planted boundary marks called birowa, claiming they were marking borders separating neighbouring villages Butege I and Butege II. The respondent filed a claim in the Kamuli District Land Tribunal alleging trespass. Two witnesses, aged 70 and 82 years old, corroborated the respondent's evidence. The Tribunal visited the locus in quo and observed that the disputed portion of land beyond the railway line belonged to the respondent. The Tribunal found in favour of the respondent, prompting the appellants to appeal to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Land Tribunal erred in evaluating the evidence and reached the wrong decision.
  2. Whether the judgment was based on evidence riddled with inconsistencies and discrepancies.
  3. Whether the respondent successfully proved his claim of trespass against the appellants.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Appellate Court — Duty of First Appellate Court — Fresh Evaluation of Evidence
The duty of the High Court as first appellate court is to subject the evidence from the lower court to fresh and exhaustive scrutiny, weighing conflicting evidence and drawing its own inferences and conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
Evidence — Unchallenged Testimony — Presumption of Truthfulness
Where the testimony of a witness passes unchallenged by the adverse party, it gives a strong presumption as to the truthfulness of the witness and credibility of the testimony adduced, unless for some other obvious reasons such testimony is rendered unbelievable.
Evidence — Inconsistencies in Testimony — Minor Inconsistencies
Where inconsistencies in witness testimony are minor and do not go to the root of the case, they will not impeach the evidence of the witnesses unless they point at deliberate untruthfulness intended to mislead or tell a lie.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Purpose and Scope — Calling Additional Witnesses
A visit to a locus in quo ought to be to check on evidence already given and, where necessary and possible, to have such evidence ocularly demonstrated in the same way a court examines a plan or exhibit already spoken of in the proceedings. Calling additional witnesses and soliciting their testimony at the locus in quo is highly irregular and constitutes a gross misdirection.

Cases cited (6)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co [1968] EA 123
  • Pandya v R [1967] EA 336
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1908)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • GAPCO (U) Ltd v AS Transporters Ltd [2009] HCB Vol 1
  • Mukasa v Uganda (1964) EA 698

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Bulima & 2 ors v Mwidu (Civil Appeal No. 024 of 2006) [2012] UGHC 264 (30 November 2012)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.